Retrieve paginated delivery relationship records for a specific webhook ID to inspect associated delivery links.
GET /v1/webhooks/{id}/relationships/deliveries (GET /v1/webhooks/{id}/relationships/deliveries)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior, no return shape, no auth/permission requirements, no rate-limit notes. Only the HTTP verb is inferable from the path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but the single sentence is the same path printed twice in parentheses, which is pure noise rather than front-loaded information. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a description consisting only of a duplicated URL, an agent has no basis for correct invocation beyond the raw parameters. Nothing about this tool's behavior or placement among siblings is conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'id' and 'limit' both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is just the raw endpoint path repeated twice, with no plain-language statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer 'GET the deliveries relationship for a webhook' from the URL, but this restates the tool name rather than explaining the operation. It is a tautology of the name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool. Critically, the sibling webhooks_deliveries_get_to_many_related exists and the description gives no hint of the difference between the 'relationship' and 'related' variants, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.